Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jun 30, 2009 5:30pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

All I can say is that it beats California...we elected Reagan as gubernore.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Jun 30, 2009 8:02pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Well we in the US elected Reagan as President -- Contras, expensive toilet seats, and ketchup as vegetables for the poor kids -- so don't feel bad.

It's a bit sad when you have to say that Carter was the best President in your lifetime.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 1, 2009 7:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

I have been very surprised at Reagan's improved position over the past 20 yrs...where were these people from 80-88? Is it just that inflation went away? The bizarre back and forth with economic policies at the time, somehow gets translated into "Ronnie did it all!" when it was just bizzare correlation (if at all) having no explicitly identifiable root cause, IMHO.

As Earl sezz, they're all a bunch of goof balls...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Jul 1, 2009 7:41am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Tell, when Reagan became president our 2 biggest problems of that time were the perceived threat of the Soviet Union and our economy, which was in shambles. Whether or not you believe he deserves credit, we did see the fall of the evil empire and the start of a 20 year economic run (that lasted through 1999). Regan was certainly instrumental in pushing for the big tax cuts that went through at that time and he was not shy about standing up to the Soviets. Now I am not saying that this is the only reason or even the primary reason for these big changes, but I believe any objective observer would say he deserves credit and that his legacy will go down as one of our better presidents. I know of no one who can say any of these things about Jimmy Cater, who was certainly the worst president of the 20th century. I do believe that there's always luck involved, being the right person at the right time.....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 1, 2009 8:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Oh, forgot BD--if you just google "worst president?" there are some interesting (some NOT!) accounts and arguments for both Carter, which you know, and RR, which might surprise some...

I am one that would not put Carter or RR as the WORST, as I think Hoover and some others made consistently bad decisions that made things worse, rather than just being a victim of circumstance, if that makes sense (like I think Jimmy was).

Ones that I have to give more credit to than I ever would have at the time are LBJ (gasp!?) and Nixon (double gasp!).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jul 1, 2009 8:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

when i get confused, i just listen to the music play. Or as Brian Ritchie and Gordon Gano advised me, "I ain't gonna piss in a cup unless Nancy Reagan drinks it up".
FUCK REAGAN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNdy2z23kIw&;feature=related

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jul 1, 2009 9:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

indeed BD! FUCK REAGAN, pretty much sums it up.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: johnnyonthespot Date: Jul 1, 2009 8:32am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Giving credit to Reagan for toppling the Soviet Union is nonsense to me. We outspent them 100 times over. Who do you think is still paying the bill for that? Ask yourself who was lying that they were an actual threat to us with far far inferior weaponery and numbers. The statistics quoted during this time were huge lies, who was encouring and behind the bogus intel? Who stood to gain the most? How much were Defense contractors making? Does anyone think that what happened wouldn't have happened anyway? It was headed that way out of desperation. We didn't have to spend that much. Who was getting rich off this? Do you really think that when the Wall came down they suddenly have the same opportunities that we do?

Under Reagan we had the most blatant shift of concentration of wealth at the top that we ever had. For some reason conservatives like to paint this kind of crap as good old fashioned American capitalism. Under Reagan it became anti-American to have labor movements and earn a livable wage but very pro American to allow deregulations that make the super rich richer and brings the demise to the middle class. Trickle down? Yeah that's most of us getting pissed on from above isn't it?IT's all about blatant greed and more of the same F'n around in other Countries business. How Ironic that this Country was founded AGAINST Imperialism and look what we became?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Jul 1, 2009 9:23am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

I stand by my post. I said he deserves a lot of credit for what happened while he was president and that OBJECTIVE observers will judge his legacy as one of our better presidents. Asking your opinion is like asking a redsox fan what he thinks of the yankees, which is useless!

It just kills liberals like you that Reagan will go down as one of the best.

This post was modified by billydlions on 2009-07-01 16:23:06

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cream-puff-war Date: Jul 2, 2009 12:12am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Picture Bullwinkle Moose looking into his crystal ball...

The best president we never had was cut down before his inevitable inauguration:

RFK.

The All-Seeing Eye of Agamotto has revealed that Bobby would have outshone his older brother Jack, but as fate would have it, once again history took a left turn...
for the worse.

Pure speculation, fortune telling or mystical mumbo jumbo perhaps; perhaps not.



This post was modified by cream-puff-war on 2009-07-02 04:41:19

This post was modified by cream-puff-war on 2009-07-02 07:12:05

Attachment: KenFeelsYourPain.jpg

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jul 1, 2009 10:11am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Anyone remember Reagan's response to the 1983 terrorist bombing of US Marine barracks in Lebanon?

If not, I'll remind you..

No US retaliation. Rest of the Marines withdrawn from Lebanon within four months.

Over the next three years, the US engaged in a secret and illegal arms-for-hostages deal with Iran, the primary state backer of the Lebanon terrorists.

And he's remembered as such a hard-ass...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 1, 2009 11:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Yep, that was what I was getting at below. The crucial, specific decisions he made vis-a-vis ForPolicy were not good ones, objectively speaking (whether you're a hard liner or not, he screwed up and was inconsistent on Central America and the Mid Eas).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 1, 2009 9:15am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Traveling in the former SUnion in the early 90s one could only be struck by the continual "WTF?!? THIS is the evil empire on par with us economically??!" This isn't to downplay the significance of the Cuban Missle Crisis and such, but it was amazing they held it together as long as they did.

I know everyone has a different take on these "gubermint regulation" issues, and the current crises, but you have to concede that RR was the champion of deregulation and less gubermint and let the market it work itself out that largely fails/failed us today...Unless you are a complete anit-gubermint/anti-regulation fanatic (ie, you concede a small even tiny need for SOME gubermint regulation), you have to conclude that the path RR sent us down was fatally flawed...or at least I think it's obvious.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Jul 1, 2009 9:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

If you are arguing that Reagan lead us on the path that we are on today, I would love to debate that point, but I'd much rather discuss the merits of 1968. Who was it that said the road to hell is paved with good intentions? That pretty much sums up how I feel about gov't involvement. They forced subprime lending (CRA act), they forced FNMA to buy these bad loans and now we blame wall st for selling them?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jul 1, 2009 9:52am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

in response to billy d, i know 2/14/68 gets a lot of love, but i most often reach for 10/12.

Sorry for the vitriol re Reagan, but living through those times and the utter disregard and contempt that admin and folks showed for segements of society still makes my skin crawl. It's the lionizing after the fact. Then again, I shouldn't be surprised since Ollie North is deemed a hero with a lucrative payday. I spent most of my life within a few minutes drive of Camp Lejeune (see Midway Park by Whiskeytown - the place where most those folks live while stationed there) and had good friends in Beirut back in the day. Pass the memorial all the time on the way to my folks. Same old song and dance....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: billydlions Date: Jul 1, 2009 10:50am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

10/12/68 is one of the great shows of the early days. I will never get tired of listening to that.

Hey BD, everyone is entitled to their opinion and I respect that. It's fun to debate this stuff at times, although I prefer the GD over politics.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Jul 1, 2009 11:05am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

agreed.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 1, 2009 11:27am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

I hear you BDL (had to add something since the other BD showed up!)...but I guess I come down to the notion (though perhaps you are one that rejects ALL involvement) that if you have to have a "little" (slippery slope) gubermint to do some things, some of the regulation is a necessary evil...I wish I knew a way to make it better, but I still think it beats all the alternatives.

And in the end, I think that all of us on this thread, debating good and bad presidents and such would agree. It's broken, ie, the system, but it sure as Hell is better than any others that have been tried...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: high flow Date: Jul 1, 2009 11:43am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

It's broken because the voice of the people has been squelched.

Like all other times and places, it takes masses of like-minded individuals to drive revolution. We may not need revolution, but we need masses of regular folk(not actors, or athletes or politicians)to stand up for freedom and democracy and fiscal common sense.

Dream on, right?

The question is, what will it take? At what point do we see our problems for what they are? The 2-party system is not the problem, it's the process which mandates a candidate(from either party) must be willing to bend over for big-biz, special interest, and religious fanatics in order to be elected which aggravates me most.

When do we put our over-fed, morbidly obese, government on a strict diet? And how?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Jul 1, 2009 8:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

That's basically my implication--luck. Good for Ronnie, bad for Jimmy. I think we largely agree.

I know that RR gets the credit, as you note, deservedly or not, for those two issues (soviet collapse, economic turn around), but having watched very carefully at the time, what is often forgotten is that ironically enough, shortly after passing his tax breaks, they virtually were all rescinded/obviated so that overall taxes did not go down, and as for the collapse, it was in the cards for the prior 30 yrs. My travels and experiences indicate to me that the soviets were not the empire we feared and imagined, and were crumbling long before that time...true, a part of that explanation lies with expenditures on defence for them, but really it was just the nature of their totalitarian state--one that was not successful in building external empires to support their internal fragile hold on the people...they fall eventually given the explotative approaches they are wedded to.

When examined critically, other than the rhetoric against the Soviets, the actual on the ground decisions by RR were very poor in the foreign relations dept (Beirut, Iraq, Cent Amer, etc.), but because they were "relatively" inconsequential (although don't tell the relatives of the 240 marines this) they are glossed over....

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: snow_and_rain Date: Jul 1, 2009 10:19am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

The economic recovery was largely the work of the Fed, primarily Paul Volcker, a Carter appointee who now is working for Obama.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Jul 1, 2009 1:46pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

The USSR was failing anyway and the Reaganites overstated the threat, and in a don't worry be happy its the end of the world because God's on our side.

Nevermind, huh, callous regard for the poor, massive spending while cutting taxes, raiding of S&Ls, destruction & neglect of our manufacturing and civil infrastructure, shift jobs overseas, fund nukes/defund solar renewables-efficiency, fund both Iraq and Iran, fund and train torture and death squads in Central America, claims that raped murdered American nuns -- by our Contras -- were not real nuns, poison pot, defund drug rehab, import coke from the WH basement (Oliver's army), invent and promote crack, changes laws so blacks end in jail more, do nothing about AIDS, and God knows what else.

As people who were into astrology, you have to wonder what signs were seen after they forced a launch disaster when Reagan was supposed to talk to the teacher in space in his state of the union. As Henley said, daddy had to lie.

At least Reagan did avoid the psychoactive jellybeans enough to delay a nuclear war which might have happened if he was not able to overrule the neocon wing. As it was they interfered in Russian affairs enough to contribute to the failure of democracy there.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: spacedface Date: Jul 1, 2009 1:56pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

And Iran-Contra is still sticky.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: grendelschoice Date: Jul 2, 2009 8:35am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: Non-Dead Politics?

Still sticky is right.

Iran-Contra laid the ground work for the shenannigans and lies that led to the invasion of Iraq (the 2nd one, based on total horse-shit).

Bush the elder got away with no fewer than two dozen utterances of 'I don't remember" or "I can't recall" in testimony regarding meetings he was in w/Ollie North, Poindexter, and the other criminals who disregarded laws passed by Congress forbidding illegal sales of weapons to the Contras.

That no price was paid (ollie & Poindexter get a couple of token months in a minimum-sec. hotel) was just the beginning of the no-accountability for high ranking govt. officials who make up their own rules, tell blatant lies to cover it all up, and stick the rest of us with the bill--both monetarily (we're still paying for those troops in Iraq, who are STILL there, whether in cities or not, thanks by the way, Barack, for nothing) and in terms of loss of credibility on the world stage.

Reagan said "tear down that wall" when he knew damn well it was already crumbling of its own accord, and said "the scariest 9 words in the English language are 'i'm from the government and i'm here to help"...which begs the question: why then should we elect you to a government job, give you the finest health care imaginable while the rest of us pick from bird droppings, saddle you with perks and gifts from lobbyists and a 6-figure salary, if all you're going to do in return is sit on your goddamned ass?

I'm voting Nader or Zippy the Pinhead in 2012, not sure which yet. What difference could it possibly make anymore?